Some might argue that even though I am not getting a direct benefit from these programs they do benefit society and myself indirectly.
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I have no beef with publicly-funded research in general, and am quite capable of seeing the larger, indirect benefits of Social Security, Medicare, public education, needle exchanges, etc.
If it only benefits the people who directly profit they should bear all of the costs as well.
And that's what I'm saying. I also take it a step further and say that tax-funded IP should not be used to line anyone's pockets in the form of licensing fees. Do I mind paying researcher's salaries? Not at all. Paying for finished goods of one sort or another? No problem.
But paying for a patent or a piece of copyrighted code that someone gets to charge licensing fees for? We gotta talk.
The idea that the process can somehow be closed and yet the public may be somehow assured that they're not being stolen from is specious at best. Opening source, even under terms that don't allow for it's use, allow for sufficient transparency that the people may be assured their interests are being taken care of.
Well, like I say, I really don't believe that the source code is anything but a restatement of the ideas. A fusion reactor is more than a simple restatement of the ideas, and therein lies the difference.
In your hypothetical example (and especially your example, since it involves information security), it would be pointless NOT to divulge the source code, and might actually improve the implementation if many eyes were able to look at the reference implementation.
Anyway, now we're down to splitting hairs. It seems like we agree more than we disagree, I'm just more extreme about valuing transparency in the work done.
If you read what I wrote, you'll note that I said that Enron was only the most recent example, not my only reason for believing that the large auditing firms are corrupt.
In your audit process, if nobody involved is paying for the professional, why is he coming? Is the gov't paying? We might get an honest process, but we'd be paying too much for it.
I'm an independent, too, with a virulent dislike of political parties in general and the two-party system in particular. When did I say the Democrats were immune to corruption?
And you can keep your little bridge - I've got my roll sunk into some serious Florida real estate.;)
Actually, I did read the article. Read what I wrote about who benefits from IP being developed and why there should be transparency in the process of keeping publicly-funded IP in the public domain, and you should (with a little mental effort) be able to see why I disagree with Dalke's proposal.
If the part of his argument you were looking for me to address was the dependence on privately-developed source code, then you're barking up the wrong tree. It would be non-trivial to duplicate the functionality embodied in closed-source packages, but it would be a one-time, finite, fixed cost with immeasurable benefits to the research community and the public. It doesn't seem worth discussion.
And I cursed at you because you approached me like an asshole.
I'd buy that if I could buy into the trustworthiness of a third-party audit. I've read to many stories about the big consulting firms taking it too easy on big firms - most recently Andersen with Enron, but there are plenty of examples if you dig through the news archives looking for the names of the big auditing firms.
Not many third parties are going to work in the public's interest. Most of them are going to work in their own interest, and if that interest ever includes taking money from a large software company they're auditing, then they'll go easy on that company. (At least until they get caught, and then they'll start distributing that wealth among Congressional campaigns.)
Your orthogonality argument is false; it dovetails quite nicely with my gripe, actually, which is that my taxes shouldn't pay to subsidize other people's enterprises. That's theft.
Are you one of those delusional libertarians who goes off about how great capitalism is and decries government intervention except when it involves transferring wealth from taxpayers to your favorite industries? I mean, come on - if the technology industries' ideas were all that shit-hot, they'd have found someone to pay for them.
And you know what, I'm not whining about not getting a ride on the space shuttle (but if you could read, you'd know that). I am griping about public funds going to make private fortunes - not through the sale of goods (I have no problem with someone getting rich selling stuff to the government, as long as the gov't shops around for a decent price) - but from licensing IP that I paid for. Knowledge paid for by the public should, generally, remain in the public's hands.
Side note: I've been to the KSC and seen the Shuttle, as well as a lot of the Delta, Atlas and Titan programs. Cool stuff. Also check out the monument to Glenn and the other Mercury astronauts, if they're letting people into that part of the complex. I encourage everyone to go down and check out what they've paid for, if they get the opportunity. (And if security restrictions ever again allow them to - I went before 9/11.)
Actually, I mentioned in another thread that I suppose I'd be satisfied if there were a regulation keeping the IP rights to the knowledge generated from publicly-funded research from falling into private hands. The reason I favor making the whole process (including the source code) open is to lend transparency to it - how else do we (the taxpayers) know what's going on, and what's ours and what belongs to a private interest? Are we to trust the private interest?
That's an interesting argument, except for one thing: The knowledge is embodied in the software.
Software is not like a fusion reactor - it costs nothing to make another instance of it, for one thing. Software is, it seems to me, a lot more like the knowledge it takes to build a fusion reactor.
I guess, then, that whether or not we agree on this boils down to whether or not we see a distinction between knowledge generated and the tangible product of that knowledge. In the case of fusion reactors, I think the distinction is quite legitimate. In the case of software, I'd have to say the distinction doesn't exist.
Indeed, if the algorithms used in the software were available for public use but the source code was not, all that would be needed would be for someone to write new source code to execute the same algorithms. If the new source is functionally identical to the old, what's the possible benefit of keeping it locked up? That's why I say the distinction between the algorithms and the code is a false one - the code is just a restatement of the algorithms.
Secondly, how's this for a rational argument against it:
If I pay for code to be developed, but someone else gets to charge licensing fees for it, with no benefit accruing to me (or the others who have paid for the project), then I have been stolen from. (The exception would be if I had paid as a charitable donation. My taxes are not charitable donations, in case you need that explained.)
So, I suppose I'd be satisfied if I could be assured that no privately held patents or copyrights could be generated by publicly-funded research - I don't pay taxes to subsidize the fortune someone else makes on licensing fees. A better, further step would be to publish the source, even if it's under a restriction disallowing the use of those portions of the code developed privately, for the purpose of providing transparency to the process, so that I (and other taxpayers) can know we're not being stolen from, even if it has to come to getting some company's source under subpoena for a comparison.
I'd still favor an all-Open-Source policy that goes beyond either of the above steps. Everything the government does should (beyond reasonable concession for security) be transparent and should benefit the people first, business interests a distant second.
Nobody's talking (at least not that I can see) about off-the-shelf software, if that's what you mean. Just because the goods are used doesn't mean that they should be open-sourced.
But IP that gets developed on my dime? That should never fall into private hands, no exceptions. I'm not paying taxes to subsidize the making of someone else's fortune on royalties or patent licensing fees. It's theft. If fees are to be charged for the use of the IP in question, then it should go back to the national treasury. I'm also very much in favor of making it retroactive, and punishing those who have made their fortunes by stealing IP from the rest of us.
The arguments against are pretty much bullshit. If I've paid for it, but I can't use it, then that's theft, pure and simple. If it happened with any normal transaction (e.g., buying a candy bar or a television), nobody would question that the person who took my money but did not give me the product was guilty of fraud (or possibly some lesser form of malfeasance).
But now, just because it's software, we have to have a discussion about whether or not the people who pay for it have a right to it? It's the kind of bullshit that could only come from corrupt corporations lobbying a corrupt government - it's as plain as the smirk on Dubya's face.
Most of your constituency are probably not capable of caring less than they already do about Open Source/Free Software issues.
OTOH, many of them probably have strong opinions on government waste. Spending money on M$ and other proprietary products when free (as in beer or speech) alternatives exist could be spun as a big-vs.-small gov't or gov't waste issue (at least on the city level, where big software corporations won't go after you with huge campaign contributions to your opponent(s)).
Nobody's talking about creating any more black holes than get created naturally. They are talking about detecting black holes that do get created naturally in our upper atmosphere.
If you actually need more explanation, go to the article.
Jokes aside, that's interesting stuff - but also a little scary. Once you have free-roving nanites monitoring pollutants in the Pacific, how long is it before someone comes up with a way to have them monitor, say, intoxicant levels in your blood?
Just imagine having your workplace demand the ability to monitor what you do with your body 24/7. "Have a few margaritas last Saturday, Wilson? You should really keep an eye on that sort of behavior. You are a company asset, after all..."
While I understand that it's just another megacorporation marking its IP turf, this is still pretty cool. Of course, this may just mean that some companies will release their discs without the logo, and may eventually lead to divergence between the paper and de facto standards both for media and players, but if it puts the screws to the content control freaks, I'm all for it.
While I'm sure the scientist in question was utterly serious and that this is a flat-out spiffy idea, I'm kind of curious if I'm the only one who lets loose a secret chuckle at every article mentioning giant orbiting lasers?
This sounds cool, but I think there are going to be problems with it, if not right off the bat, then sometime down the road. Even with crypto, digital signatures, &c, there's huge potential for say, tweaking someone's plea, tampering with documentary evidence, and if (as the blurb suggests) a sufficiently spiffy AI ever comes to be, then even the telepresence of a lawyer or client could be spoofed.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to deal with problems like this - abuses of corporate wealth - is to stop offering corporations the same rights to legal recourse as people.
A corporation is really just a legal fiction with the rights of a person. Unfortunately, the wealth corporations tend to accrete seems to offer them better use of those rights (e.g., legal redress of grievances) than real people actually get. Is there some answer other than limiting the rights of corporations to sue?
OK, now I'm just going to ramble... I'll think about this more and post it to K5...
I gotta say, though, that when both Democrats AND Republicans throw civil liberties out the window, I have to wonder if the Illuminati aren't involved...
Sort of, but not exactly... To my knowledge, you can't control when the phosphorescent material will re-emit the light that came in. Nor can you guarantee anything about polarization, etc. of the outcoming light - it's not the same light coming out that went in.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, I think that to do that properly is going to take opening the source for projects that generate software.
OK,
- B
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I have no beef with publicly-funded research in general, and am quite capable of seeing the larger, indirect benefits of Social Security, Medicare, public education, needle exchanges, etc.
And that's what I'm saying. I also take it a step further and say that tax-funded IP should not be used to line anyone's pockets in the form of licensing fees. Do I mind paying researcher's salaries? Not at all. Paying for finished goods of one sort or another? No problem.
But paying for a patent or a piece of copyrighted code that someone gets to charge licensing fees for? We gotta talk.
The idea that the process can somehow be closed and yet the public may be somehow assured that they're not being stolen from is specious at best. Opening source, even under terms that don't allow for it's use, allow for sufficient transparency that the people may be assured their interests are being taken care of.
OK,
- B
In your hypothetical example (and especially your example, since it involves information security), it would be pointless NOT to divulge the source code, and might actually improve the implementation if many eyes were able to look at the reference implementation.
Anyway, now we're down to splitting hairs. It seems like we agree more than we disagree, I'm just more extreme about valuing transparency in the work done.
OK,
- B
In your audit process, if nobody involved is paying for the professional, why is he coming? Is the gov't paying? We might get an honest process, but we'd be paying too much for it.
And how did you know where I kept my money? ;)
OK,
- B
And you can keep your little bridge - I've got my roll sunk into some serious Florida real estate. ;)
OK,
- B
If the part of his argument you were looking for me to address was the dependence on privately-developed source code, then you're barking up the wrong tree. It would be non-trivial to duplicate the functionality embodied in closed-source packages, but it would be a one-time, finite, fixed cost with immeasurable benefits to the research community and the public. It doesn't seem worth discussion.
And I cursed at you because you approached me like an asshole.
OK,
- B
Not many third parties are going to work in the public's interest. Most of them are going to work in their own interest, and if that interest ever includes taking money from a large software company they're auditing, then they'll go easy on that company. (At least until they get caught, and then they'll start distributing that wealth among Congressional campaigns.)
OK,
- B
Are you one of those delusional libertarians who goes off about how great capitalism is and decries government intervention except when it involves transferring wealth from taxpayers to your favorite industries? I mean, come on - if the technology industries' ideas were all that shit-hot, they'd have found someone to pay for them.
And you know what, I'm not whining about not getting a ride on the space shuttle (but if you could read, you'd know that). I am griping about public funds going to make private fortunes - not through the sale of goods (I have no problem with someone getting rich selling stuff to the government, as long as the gov't shops around for a decent price) - but from licensing IP that I paid for. Knowledge paid for by the public should, generally, remain in the public's hands.
Side note: I've been to the KSC and seen the Shuttle, as well as a lot of the Delta, Atlas and Titan programs. Cool stuff. Also check out the monument to Glenn and the other Mercury astronauts, if they're letting people into that part of the complex. I encourage everyone to go down and check out what they've paid for, if they get the opportunity. (And if security restrictions ever again allow them to - I went before 9/11.)
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
Software is not like a fusion reactor - it costs nothing to make another instance of it, for one thing. Software is, it seems to me, a lot more like the knowledge it takes to build a fusion reactor.
I guess, then, that whether or not we agree on this boils down to whether or not we see a distinction between knowledge generated and the tangible product of that knowledge. In the case of fusion reactors, I think the distinction is quite legitimate. In the case of software, I'd have to say the distinction doesn't exist.
Indeed, if the algorithms used in the software were available for public use but the source code was not, all that would be needed would be for someone to write new source code to execute the same algorithms. If the new source is functionally identical to the old, what's the possible benefit of keeping it locked up? That's why I say the distinction between the algorithms and the code is a false one - the code is just a restatement of the algorithms.
OK,
- B
Secondly, how's this for a rational argument against it:
If I pay for code to be developed, but someone else gets to charge licensing fees for it, with no benefit accruing to me (or the others who have paid for the project), then I have been stolen from. (The exception would be if I had paid as a charitable donation. My taxes are not charitable donations, in case you need that explained.)
So, I suppose I'd be satisfied if I could be assured that no privately held patents or copyrights could be generated by publicly-funded research - I don't pay taxes to subsidize the fortune someone else makes on licensing fees. A better, further step would be to publish the source, even if it's under a restriction disallowing the use of those portions of the code developed privately, for the purpose of providing transparency to the process, so that I (and other taxpayers) can know we're not being stolen from, even if it has to come to getting some company's source under subpoena for a comparison.
I'd still favor an all-Open-Source policy that goes beyond either of the above steps. Everything the government does should (beyond reasonable concession for security) be transparent and should benefit the people first, business interests a distant second.
Satisfied, asshole?
OK,
- B
But IP that gets developed on my dime? That should never fall into private hands, no exceptions. I'm not paying taxes to subsidize the making of someone else's fortune on royalties or patent licensing fees. It's theft. If fees are to be charged for the use of the IP in question, then it should go back to the national treasury. I'm also very much in favor of making it retroactive, and punishing those who have made their fortunes by stealing IP from the rest of us.
OK,
- B
But now, just because it's software, we have to have a discussion about whether or not the people who pay for it have a right to it? It's the kind of bullshit that could only come from corrupt corporations lobbying a corrupt government - it's as plain as the smirk on Dubya's face.
OK,
- B
OTOH, many of them probably have strong opinions on government waste. Spending money on M$ and other proprietary products when free (as in beer or speech) alternatives exist could be spun as a big-vs.-small gov't or gov't waste issue (at least on the city level, where big software corporations won't go after you with huge campaign contributions to your opponent(s)).
Best of luck - we need more geeks in office.
OK,
- B
Nobody's talking about creating any more black holes than get created naturally. They are talking about detecting black holes that do get created naturally in our upper atmosphere.
If you actually need more explanation, go to the article.
OK,
- B
No, I can't do it.
Jokes aside, that's interesting stuff - but also a little scary. Once you have free-roving nanites monitoring pollutants in the Pacific, how long is it before someone comes up with a way to have them monitor, say, intoxicant levels in your blood?
Just imagine having your workplace demand the ability to monitor what you do with your body 24/7. "Have a few margaritas last Saturday, Wilson? You should really keep an eye on that sort of behavior. You are a company asset, after all..."
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
So is that to be the new campaign promise of the 21st century? "A chicken in every pot and a giant laser in geosynchronous orbit over every home"?
While I'm sure the scientist in question was utterly serious and that this is a flat-out spiffy idea, I'm kind of curious if I'm the only one who lets loose a secret chuckle at every article mentioning giant orbiting lasers?
OK, maybe that's just me.
- B
Physical presence is just better for some things.
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
A corporation is really just a legal fiction with the rights of a person. Unfortunately, the wealth corporations tend to accrete seems to offer them better use of those rights (e.g., legal redress of grievances) than real people actually get. Is there some answer other than limiting the rights of corporations to sue?
OK, now I'm just going to ramble... I'll think about this more and post it to K5...
OK,
- B
I gotta say, though, that when both Democrats AND Republicans throw civil liberties out the window, I have to wonder if the Illuminati aren't involved...
OK,
- B
Hey, maybe they'll discover a way to make money on web content.
OK,
- B
OK,
- B